Book Review: "The Universe in a Single Atom"

The Universe in a Single Atom
By The Dalai Lama

I read The Universe in a Single Atom by recommendation of a friend. Considering the fact that I'm a big fan of science, he thought that I might be a good start for me to see how science and Buddhism follow each other. I am extremely interested in finding what scientific evidence follows the different religions of the world and how the different religous adherents respond to scientific conflicts, so I was quite excited to read this book.

Did God Create Evil?

God created all things.
Evil is a thing.
Therefore, God created evil.

Love is not evil.
An all-loving God would not create evil.
Therefore, God is not all-loving (he's evil).

That is quite devastating to Christianity, isn't it? The argument is logically valid. If you agree that the premises are true, then you can't escape the conclusions.

I have heard a few people use this argument to disprove the existence of the all-loving God of Christianity. It seems that this argument is quite solid. Logically, it is sound. But, there is one flaw, not in the logic, but the truth of one of the premises. What's really neat about arguments is that if you can show one premise to be false, all conclusions that follow it (are dependent on it) may be tossed out. Any conclusions above it (not dependent on it) are safe, though.

What's great is that the problem premise in this argument is the second premise. "Evil is a thing". So, we don't have to accept either of the conclusions. Since I want to claim that "evil is a thing" is false and that "evil is not a thing", I need to make an argument. So here it goes:

I want to start by defining what the opposite of "evil" is. Good. "Good" is not a thing either. It is a description of God's nature. God has a moral nature that is good. God is not subject to "good" (otherwise "good" would be greater than God, making it God) and God does not determine "good" (if he did, then "good" would be arbitrarily determined- God could have made rape good). Instead "good" is a description of God's moral nature. God knows what His moral nature is, so He can tell us what is "good" and what is "evil". This is called the moral law.

Based on this, an absence of "good" would make something "evil". I want to clarify this, though. Just because something is "not good" does not mean that it is "evil". For instance, take the colors black and white. They are opposites. If presented with the color gray, it would be perfectly acceptable to say that it is not white, but it would not be acceptable to say that it is black. Many things are morally neutral. Such as your choice of ice cream. A choice or action does not cross over into the "evil" category unless it is "actively working or standing against" God's moral law or nature.

God created humans "in His image" (the imago dei) . One of the properties of God's image is the recognition of what is "good" and "evil". However, when sin entered into the world, that ability was clouded. I'll go more into this in a future post on the depravity of man.

Humans can discern "good" from "evil" on their own (Romans 2:14-15). Many secularists can make an argument for how (not why) they determine "good" from "evil"- they observe human behavior and nature. But that can only go so far, mainly because human culture changes and what is perceived as "bad" will one day change to "good". Some areas that seem gray may actually be black or white. Since our discernment has been clouded by our sin, we need to refer to God's revelation (the Bible) to help us determine more concretely what is "good" and what is "evil".

Once we recognize that God's standard of good cannot be met; and no matter how hard we try, our good deeds will not restore our relationship with Him, we recognize the need for a Savior. Once we recognize our need and humble ourselves to the point of accepting Jesus as our Savior, then we allow Him to reveal to us even more about His nature and what "good" is.

For more information, I recommend these:

Podcasts
Just Thinking
Defenders
Reasonable Faith
Straight Thinking
Apologetics.com Radio Show
Stand to Reason

Books
Without a Doubt by Kenneth Samples
Beyond the Cosmos by Hugh Ross

If God Hears Me, Why Does He Not Care?

This is a challenge that I have heard put against practicing prayer many times. It is also used to imply that God either cannot hear our prayers, or does not care about us (thus He is not all-loving).

Simply put, this claim is the result of the person claiming it "forming God in man's image". The person has a specific idea of what God is supposed to be. Many sources exist to arrive at this conclusion. Someone might have told him to believe that if he prays for healing...POOF! He's healed! A church may have taught him that God wants his people to have the very best (referring to material possessions, of course). "God, please let me win the lottery." Have you ever seen the movie Bruce Almighty? :) Watch it and you'll know what I'm talking about.

The thing about God is that He made us in His image, not the other way around. Man is impatient, greedy, and selfish. Many times, God answers your prayer, not how you think it should be answered, but how He knows it should be answered, and when. For instance, I have a friend that has been wheelchair bound for several decades. This person asked for healing from God, and she believed with all that her heart that God would do it. Years passed, but she was not healed. Later, she realized that God had other plans for her life. She has been a tremendous witness for Christ. Specifically she has the ability to testify that God will never leave nor forsake us when we are going through suffering. She can testify that God makes drastic changes in our lives to drastically change us, for the better.

Let's think about this for a minute. If God was to give us the $200 million lottery ticket like we prayed for. Would that make us feel more dependent on Him or less dependent on Him? Many times God gives us a resounding "NO!" to teach us to be more like Him and depend more on Him.

God also has perfect timing for everything. You might be in a painful situation that you have not been delivered from. God could be biding his time, waiting on you to acknowledge and change something that you haven't yet, and may not have even considered if the pain was not there. God may also be leading you down a different path in life.

Either way, while we are suffering, we can know that God is there, and we should use the situation to the best of our abilities to discover new (possibly temporary, possibly permanent) ways to serve God.

Remember that your prayers are never unheard, and they are never unanswered. God just might be doing something that you don't expect. As we strive to be more like Christ and draw nearer to Him, we will be able to see more clearly what He has planned for our lives. As this happens, we will be able to be a witness to others in the same situation.

I have posted more on the topic of suffering in my posts "Suffering Sucks...or Does It?" and "Natural Evil".

Book Review: "Tactics"

Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Faith
By Gregory Koukl

Greg Koukl has written a fantastic book for conversational apologetics. Koukl starts out this book by explaining that the intent of this book is not to be manipulative or make the other person look like a fool in conversation. He explains the importance of a coherent worldview and the importance of being able to identify incoherence. He provides a defense of the reasons for being able to provide a defense for the Christian faith. All of which are very important to anyone who wishes to engage someone in conversation about their faith. Koukl then starts the reader on his list of ways to progress through conversation. Before Koukl describes a tactic, how to use it, and how not to use it; he explains why each tactic is important.

What's Important About Consistency?

In my posts and in my discussions about worldviews, I stress consistency. When I say "consistency" I'm talking about the beliefs within a worldview being logically compatible with each other and beliefs being compatible with the adherents' behaviors.

One of the "worldview tests" that Kenneth Samples discusses in his book on worldviews, "A World of Difference", is a test for internal consistency. Any worldview that claims to accurately reflect reality (be true) must maintain consistency among its beliefs. Truth cannot conflict with truth. So, if a worldview were to say that 2+2=4 and that 3x2=5, it would have a serious problem. The fact that the second claim is false has no bearing on the truth of the first claim, it only has bearing on the truth of the worldview as a whole. Any worldview that contains two contrary beliefs that cannot be resolved within the framework of the worldview without creating more contrary beliefs must be discarded.

Atheism and Morality

Its been quite interesting to see how many atheists there are who believe that objective morality exists. Actually, I would say that the majority believe in objective morality. However, objective morality is inconsistent with the atheist worldview; they don't have a foundation for acting in a "moral" way versus an "immoral" way. I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral; they can. I'm just saying that they can't justify it. Here's why.

Morality implies "oughtness". How something ought to behave. That implies that you understand that that thing (that ought to behave in a certain way) was designed to behave in the expected way. Example: A watch ought to keep time. It is designed to keep time; therefore, it ought to. If it were not designed to do anything, it ought (is expected) to do nothing.

Atheism posits that humans and the universe have no design or purpose, period. Therefore, it must be concluded that atheism has no room for moral (among other types of) "oughtness".

Does "oughtness" flow logically from "design" or "expectation"? The atheist might be able to get away from the conclusion above by claiming "oughtness" just implies an expectation. But I would have to question what they base their "expectation" on. If they want to base it on history (rather than design) then, they must determine which parts of history they want to base the expectation on, and I would ask them why they choose those certain parts of history and not others.

Now, some atheists have tried to explain the foundation for their belief in objective morality by pointing to examples in the world. They argue along the lines of "look at society; obviously, murder is wrong" or "obviously, stealing is wrong". They use examples to prove "why". The problem is examples don't prove "why" something is true; they only prove "that" something is true. Atheists still need to provide a reason "why" they ought to act a certain way.

Once again, I'm not saying that atheists can't be moral. I'm saying there is no objective foundation for determining why a certain behavior is moral or immoral in their worldview.

Not only does Christianity explain "why" objective morality exists (it is the very nature of God), but it explains "how" an atheist can be moral, yet believe something completely opposite.

Here's a good article on the subject from Dr. William Lane Craig:
Can We Be Good Without God?

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Greg Koukl is a good book about atheism and morality.

Here's a video from Greg Koukl. He is asked if pain and suffering disprove God's existence.

Natural Evil

With all the inclimate weather Oklahoma has been having lately (tornadoes in Feb), I've been thinking about natural evil in the world. This will probably touch a bit on a couple things that I already covered in "Suffering Sucks...or Does it?". If you haven't already, check that post out before you continue with this one.

Many people have asked why an omnibenevolent (all-loving) God would allow such disasters to happen. These people tend to associate anything that causes pain with being evil. In my post about suffering I addressed why this argument does not logically follow. But on this post I would like to provide a short defense of why God would allow such things to happen at all (whether they affect people or not), and why this is actually the opposite case- these are, in fact, the works expected of an omnibenevolent God.

This argument is pretty much weighted on the impression of extreme design of our planet specifically for the existence of intelligent life.

One of the necessary factors required for a planet to support advanced life forms is "plate tectonics". In short, plate tectonics is the movement of a planet's rocky material. The way most planets form is that they start out as complete "water-worlds". Basically, they are nothing but a ball of water with a rocky center. Movement of the planet's crust allows the rocky material to come to the surface and produce landmasses.

Unfortunately, another effect of plate tectonics is that is that it interacts with the atmosphere (another just-right component) and produces natural disasters such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Plate tectonics, by itself, can also produce earthquakes and tsunamis.

All of these disasters are side effects of have a planet that can sustain our living here. We are stuck with them, if we want to live.

Some prominent Christians have said that recent natural disasters are "divine judgment" on humanity. They base this claim on the fact that God did use some natural disasters in the Bible as judgment. However, it does not follow that God used these natural disasters for this purpose.

If you take a look at the damage from natural disasters in the past, they did much more damage (in monetary terms) in the early 1900's than they do now. This is because humanity has been able to develop technologies that can keep them safe(r). Some have said that today, these same "natural evils" may be considered "moral evils" because of the fact that the more advanced nations have not implemented the same technologies in the poorer nations of the earth, and thus the loss of life may be indirectly the responsibility of the more advanced nations. So, an argument could be made for this. I don't know that I quite agree with that, but I digress.

My point in all this is that God created the universe with fixed laws of physics that have certain requirements in order to support life. God created our planet specifically so that the human race could not only live, but thrive. This is what is to be expected of an omnibenevolent God. Here's a quick video from Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason:



But this brings up another question: "Why did God not choose laws of physics that would allow for us to thrive without all the natural evils?" Here is an episode of the podcast "Why The Universe Is The Way It Is" in which Dr. Hugh Ross answers that question.



If you would like to do more research into this check out these great resources:

Web Pages
Natural Disasters- Reasons to Believe
Design Found In Earthquake Activity- Reasons to Believe
What If There Were No Hurricanes- Reasons to Believe
Problem of Evil- Reasonable Faith
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Books
Creator and the Cosmos by Dr. Hugh Ross
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross
A World Of Difference by Kenneth Samples
Without A Doubt- by Kenneth Samples

Podcasts
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
I Didn't Know That
Straight Thinking
Reasonable Faith
Just Thinking

Who Created God?

I like this question. Its one that is a "show stopper" for many debates, and the level of knowledge of the debaters will determine on who's side it stops. Let's look at it.

As mentioned in my post "How It All Began- Part 2", people who hold a naturalistic worldview believe that life on earth was planted here by a superior race of aliens. These people are often challenged by pointing out that they have not eliminated the need for God; they've only moved His need back one step. "Who created the aliens?" If they hold to a naturalistic worldview, they are stuck- unless they want to posit another race of aliens created the aliens who planted life on earth. Of course, they could keep going infinitely back in time, and they would never actually explain an ultimate beginning of any life.

Many Naturalists know this, so they throw the question back to us. "Who Created God?" They believe that we are in the same predicament that they are. They anticipate our response of "God is eternal" and are prepared to laugh us down by rhetorically asking, "how can you posit attributes of something that you haven't proven even exists?"

However, the table can be turned on the Naturalist by the Theist who is armed properly. Since Naturalists don't regard the Bible as a reliable source, I won't appeal to it, and neither should the Christian in this position (if he does, the Naturalist will target the Bible as a reliable source rather than the issue- not that they would provide any good evidence, they would just laugh it away, along with the audience). I will appeal to the Bible as a source for the Christian's benefit later in the post, though.

According to the general theory of relativity space, matter, energy, and time came into existence at a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). The key here is that time itself has a beginning. Keep in mind that "create" is a verb that requires time (creator...some time passes...creation). If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then whatever is out "there" is "time-less". Whatever is out "there" is also "beginning-less" and "end-less". If something has no beginning, it has no need for a beginner (creator).

The cause of the universe caused time, therefore is outside of time, therefore has no beginning, therefore has no beginner. The Christian faith teaches that God is the Cause of the universe; therefore God is outside of time; therefore God has no beginning; therefore God has no beginner.

Not only does the Bible teach that God created the universe, it also teaches that God existed before time existed.

John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If creation includes time, then God existed before time.

John 17:24, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." God was active before time.

I Corinthians 2:7, "No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." God was active before time.

That list of verses is certainly not comprehensive, but provides a good start for the Christian looking or the non-Christian checking that the Bible actual does teach this.

Here's a quick video from Randall Niles:


For more information:

Websites
Reasonablefaith.org

Podcasts
Defenders

Books
Beyond the Cosmos- Hugh Ross

Comments Now Open!

***Comment Policy Updated for 2021 and beyond***

Before posting a comment, please read my review of the book "Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache" by Emerson Eggerichs. I highly recommend reading the full book as it is an excellent guide to gentle and respectful communication online.

Additionally, here are a few explicit rules:

1. No trolling
2. No ad hominem attacks
3. No bad language, please- some people do take offense to certain words, you know which ones not to use- use a thesaurus if you have to.
4. You are to treat everyone with gentleness and respect.

5. Speak to and about everyone with grace. There are no exceptions.
6. Don't be too sensitive (not every challenge is disrespectful)
7. Keep the comments focused on the topic in the original post

8. No "shot gun" approach to challenging, either in a single comment or multiple comments. Pick one or two things to address and be patient so the dialog may be graceful and productive
9. Show other arguments the respect you wish yours to be shown
10. Anonymity is a privilege of the internet. Do not use it to abuse others or hide from criticism

I do moderate comments, and I will approve comments that are within the spirit of the rules. Please note that I do not have time to respond to everyone's comment and there may be a delay in my approval of comments. 

This Argument Is Full of Crap!

This is something that is so easy to do when in a discussion with someone. You know, your conversation is heading one direction, then one of you say something that causes it to take a hard left. In normal conversation, this is not a problem; in fact, it makes conversations lively and lengthy. However, in a conversation that involves one or both of the parties defending a position, there are a few things to look out for from your "opponent" and yourself.

They are called logical fallacies. It is advantageous to be able to recognize when your opponent is using one. It is also to your own benefit to ensure you don't use them either. In other words, be able and willing to call "Bull Crap!" on yourself and your opponent.

I'm going to quickly discuss four of the most common pitfalls.

The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed anytime the truth of a claim is based on its origin. A common example is believing something is true (such as your religion) because your parents said it is true. Though it may be true, just because your parents say that it is, does not make it so.

This fallacy is commonly committed in a debate when an opponent (confronted with solid evidence) says something along the lines of, "You just believe that because that's how you were brought up," or "people believed that hundreds of years ago." From either of these, they try to make the conclusion that what you are defending can't possibly be true. But that does not follow.

If this fallacy were to be committed by your opponent, you can neutralize the attack by applying the exact same reasoning to something that both of you would agree is ridiculous. By way of the examples above, good responses might sound something like these, "I was brought up to believe the earth is a sphere. Should I not believe that either?" and "Hundreds of years ago people believed the sun was the center of the solar system. Am I wrong to believe that also?" Then explain why their attack is useless.

The ad hominem Attack
This is a fallacious attack on the person presenting the argument. Most of the time this takes place in the shape of an attack on the character or the credibility of the person presenting the argument.

Character and credibility have nothing to do with whether or not a conclusion is correct. We would all agree that Hitler is probably one of the persons with the worst character in history; however, if he told us that adultery is wrong, we would be committing an ad hominem attack if we pointed out that he killed over 6 million people, then concluded that we couldn't trust him on moral issues. We know that adultery is wrong, but we could not defend our position based on the character of the person making the argument (Hitler). The reason for this is because someone else whom we may consider to be of a much higher character than Hitler may make the exact same argument, and our counter-argument that we used against Hitler would not work against the new opponent.

The key to preventing yourself from using this kind of attack is to ask yourself if your argument (or counter-argument) could be used no matter who you were arguing against.

If this type of attack were to be made by your opponent, you may want to question its validity by asking them to defend their claim (that your character somehow makes your argument invalid). If they are placed back on the defensive, they are placed into the uncomfortable position of defending a personal attack. They may also accuse you of trying to divert the subject by asking them to defend this position, but you may reply by pointing out that an attack on your character was the diversion first attempted by them- you are just going with the flow.

Check out the Wikipedia article about ad hominem attacks.

The Straw Man Fallacy

The Straw Man fallacy is a favorite among all people. What's tricky about this one is that it can be committed knowingly or unknowingly.

The Straw Man fallacy basically involves misrepresenting the opposing argument in such a way that it is easily destroyed by your counter-arguments. A lot of times, someone setting up a "straw man" will "forget" an important piece of or over-simplify the opposing argument.

The people who commit this fallacy unknowingly typically just haven't done their homework in respect to the position they are arguing against. If someone ever says "You are misrepresenting the facts of my position", you have committed this fallacy unknowingly; you need to admit it, and promise to do more research to adjust your argument to be fighting the "real issue" not a fake issue that is in your head.

The people who commit this fallacy knowingly typically do it without the opposition to correct them. This allows the people attending to "see" why the arguments of the opposition are useless. But, when one of the attendees confront someone of the opposing position, they will be made to be a fool, because of the original presenter's "straw man" representation of the opposing argument.

This fallacy is so easy to fall into. This is why we need to make certain that we understand the opposition's position and the arguments they use to reach their conclusions. Don't spend time fighting against something that is not the actual issue (just a bad representation of it) (the "straw man"). It is best to find the strongest arguments for the opposition and argue against those. If you can successfully argue against your opponent's strongest evidences, you will do considerable damage to their position.

Common Belief Fallacy

I have seen way too many people claim that because "many" people believe something, that makes it true or at least viable. However, this does a great disservice to the definition of "truth". If a "common belief" were to hold any amount of weight for determining "truth", then "truth" would be reduced to being relative to how whims of the people. Absolute "truth" would then never be able to be known, thus destroying any reason for even arguing about the truth of anything, because it might change in the next couple years.

I would also like to know if "many" is a reference to number or percentage. If number, the relative to what other number to define it as "many"? What is the significance of using the word "many" anyway? Why not "some" or "a few" or "tons" or no quantitative (referring to number of) adjective at all? The only conclusion that can be arrived at by a claim of this sort (regardless of the adjective) is that it is in the minds of people, thus needs attention. But nothing more.

Note to All about Fallacies
By committing any of these fallacies, we commit academic dishonesty in our arguments and lose credibility among our peers, the public, and those we wish to debate.

Note to Christians about Fallacies
As a Christian, this is extremely important because the limit of our credibility will be the limit to which people will listen to our message. Also, some people will project our limited credibility onto others who hold our same position (whether or not the others have made the same mistake we did of committing these fallacies). As Christians we should understand the eternal damage we could be causing by even flirting with one of these fallacies.

Now, I'm not trying to say that I never have or never will commit one (read as "all") of these fallacies. I will make mistakes, but when I do, I back-peddle as quickly as I possibly can to maintain my (and my peers') credibility.

Here's a good blog post about intellectual honesty and the Bible:
Integrating Argument and Virtue

For more information about these fallacies and others, Norman Geisler has a great book Come, Let Us Reason.

Here are a couple episodes of Straight Thinking by Kenneth Samples in which he discusses logic and touches a bit on these fallacies.

Need for Dispassionate Analysis


Avoiding the Straw Man


Avoiding the ad-Hominem Attack

Can You Trust Your Senses or Your Logic?

This is quite the interesting question. If we can't trust our senses and/or our logic then we're in deep trouble. We would not be able to trust anything that we experience (not to mention the entire scientific enterprise), nor would be able to trust that we would be able to find any form of truth.

I'm going to look at three different worldviews and what they say about this. Let's start with the eastern worldviews.

The Importance of Learning to Communicate

Communication is key to any kind of interaction with people. It helps us accomplish common goals, empathize with each other, or persuade of another opinion. Communication also informs people around us who we are and what we think.

Communication is an awesome tool, but it can do much damage if not used properly. This holds true in all types of situations.

As (hopefully) everyone knows, communication is a two-way street for the parties involved. If you are attempting to communicate with another person, you convey information, and they convey information. The key is for each of you to accept the conveyed information. I'm not talking about just "hearing" or "seeing", but interpreting and understanding. If one of you interprets the information incorrectly it could be something as small as a simple misunderstanding or as large as an personal insult (that does lasting emotional damage).

Reaching Our Youth to Reach A Dying World

The Scientific Challenge
Throughout the school-age years, our children are constantly bombarded with the idea that science is superior to any religious belief in its grip on reality. They are taught that naturalistic Evolution is the only possible conclusion from the data, and it is proclaimed to be science fact. Of course, we know this to be untrue, but we must equip our children with sound reasons to believe that we are telling them the truth. They are given evidence by the academy for its positions; therefore, we must do the same. When we give our children sound counter-arguments to weigh against the arguments of the opposition, they are less likely to blindly accept the opposition. That will place them on firmer ground and prepare them as ambassadors for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a polarized(ing) world so deeply in need.

The Philosophical Challenge
Of course, the scientific debate is not the only challenge that our children will face. They will be confronted by other world religions, the cults, and other philosophies. In the humanities at university, they will be guided to believe that there are no absolutes (truth or moral). It is our job, not only to provide our children with a scientifically and logically sound arguments for their beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), but to see that they understand correct Christian doctrine (i.e. about God, Christ, the Trinity, sin, etc...). No one will be forced into the Kingdom by an impenetrable logical argument. In some cases man's pride will cause him to make the most ridiculous and fallacy-ridden arguments before he accepts his need for a Savior. I am convinced that the further man moves away from God, the more illogical he becomes. I also believe that the more illogical man becomes, the further he moves away from God.

Faith is Logical and Emotional
Having said that, we also need to cultivate a love for Christ in our children that burns until they are consumed with it. Christ told us "If you love me, you will obey what I command." (John 14:15) This was not a statement of how to prove to Christ that you "love" him (works-based theology, but that's a different topic), it was a statement of how the world will be able to identify Christ's love in you (see also John 15) and see that you are acting on what Christ taught (in an effort to avoid hypocrisy). Christ summed up all His commands with this simple phrase, "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27, Italics mine). Providing an apologetic argument to others is part of loving God with our mind and loving our neighbor enough to help him overcome his doubt, so that he can enjoy the gift that Christ has given to us of the freedom from the separation from God.

The Danger
Unfortunately, I have seen too many youths who considered themselves Christians, then lost their faith when they got into the world. Most of them state that a college professor was able to reason them away from a belief in God altogether. Or a coworker with a different worldview quickly convinced them that there are many ways to God. I have also asked kids (before they get to this point) why they believe in Jesus Christ. Many of them simply say "because the Bible says so". If I was an unbeliever, why would I accept that as a valid reason if I didn't accept the Bible as a valid source of truth in the first place?

To Youth Leaders
I have seen in many of our churches that the youth group is spending too much time trying to "babysit" youth rather than teach them to understand the reasons and foundations for their faith or equipping them with sound tactics for evangelizing to the skeptics. I'm not saying that we aren't teaching our children about Jesus and all the stories in the Bible. What I am saying is that we spend too much time stressing memorization, and not enough time understanding how and why our Faith is coherent, logical, and most importantly, TRUE.

I also don't see (anywhere) where our youth are taught to appeal to extra-Biblical sources in their witness. Unbelievers don't accept the Bible as a source of truth (I found that out the hard way in my early college years); so the witnessing Christian who only uses the Bible is at a great disadvantage and limits the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the Holy Spirit pushes people toward the Gospel, but it is ultimately the person's choice whether to accept it or not. Yes, the Holy Spirit works through the believer to witness to that person. But, our knowledge and understanding limits what we can do. God works through Christians, but we place limits on how God can use us by limiting our knowledge and understanding. God gave us a mind. He commands us to use it. He also commanded us to make disciples of all people. Therefore, we should use our mind to make disciples of all people.

Our youth have the opportunity to be the most powerful ambassadors for Christ in the academy. If they can soundly challenge the crap that is being force-fed to them, they not only strengthen themselves, they strengthen other (less knowledgeable) believers, and they sow many seeds of doubt about the alternatives in the minds of unbelieving students. Imagine how the Holy Spirit could use our youth who choose not to place intellectual limits on themselves.

Christianity is different from every other religion, not just because it is the truth, but it can provide the Believer with spiritual, emotional, and intellectual fulfillment. If we allow God to work through us to show our children how fulfilling knowing the One True God can be, there is no end to how God can and will use them to reach this dying world.

Jesus made the most radical claim in history: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father except through me." It is time we teach our children how to defend that statement.

How Did It All Begin- Clarification

I want to make it clear that I do not consider the conclusions of this particular series (How Did It All Begin? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) to be anywhere near essential for Salvation. I know there are some Christians who believe that their particular position on Creation, Evolution, or the age of the universe to be essential, but I am not one of them. Since I do not believe these to be essential, I don't believe that these issues are grounds for termination of fellowship or discrimination within the Church. I believe that anyone who does believe that is in direct conflict with traditional Christianity.

Rather, I believe that this is something that needs to be debated with gentleness and respect in the Church. Read my early post "Nature vs. Scripture" for more info.

How Did It All Begin? Part 4- Evolution? Really?

If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.

In Part 1 of this series, I showed some basic evidence about the Big Bang theory. In Part 2, I separated the Big Bang from Evolution. In Part 3, I showed how the Bible is compatible with billions of years and answered a couple objections. In Part 4, I'm going to go more into the theory of Evolution.

Okay first, I need to define a couple terms: "evolution" (little-e), and "Evolution" (big-E).
Simply put, "evolution" is a change with respect to time. And "Evolution" is the theory that states that all life changed over time from simple to complex.

Little-e evolution is pretty much a no-brainer. These types of changes are extremely small changes within a species that allow the species advantages. This level is well established scientifically. An example would be a change in camouflage or Darwin's finches. It does take place via random gene mutations that natural selection acts upon. Keep in mind that the overwhelmingly vast majority of random mutations are harmful to the organism. It is rare that they actually help- but it does happen. "Natural selection" is really a fancy scientific phrase for explaining the process by which organisms are eliminated (killed) because of the disadvantage of a random mutation. This level of evolution does not lead to new species nor does it have any form of genuine creative power. If I refer to it again, it will be called "microevolution" (meaning- small scale). Microevolution is also referred to as "adaptation".

Big-E Evolution is where things get hairy and must not be confused with microevolution. There are two kinds: Naturalistic and Theistic.
Naturalistic Evolution relies totally on nature. There are three components responsible for complex life: Common Ancestry, Random Mutation, and Natural Selection.

Both Naturalistic and Theistic Evolutionists accept microevolution. However, Theistic Evolutionists accept only one of the three portions of Naturalistic Evolution to explain life's changes beyond what microevolution's limits. That is Common Ancestry. Theistic Evolution states that God intervened to do what Naturalistic Evolutionists rely on random mutation and natural selection to accomplish.

Dr. Michael Behe puts together a pretty solid case against random mutation and natural selection for being responsible for complex life in his book The Edge of Evolution. Behe does support common ancestry, so he would fall under the category of Theistic Evolutionist. He provides some evidence, such as common genes, common "junk DNA" and common anatomical features. Behe believes, though, that a Designer is responsible for the precise mutations and jumps that natural mutations cannot do in order for life to arrive at its current level of complexity.

Dr. Fazale Rana pointed out in his book "Who Was Adam" that the problem with common genes being evidence for common ancestry is that even though humans are "98% ape" (we share 98% of our genes with the great apes), we are also 30% daffadil (we share 30% of our genes with the daffodil). Unless you are willing to admit that you are one-third flower, this means nothing. Dr. Rana goes into detail of some of the "Junk DNA" in his book "The Cell's Design"; in there he points out that scientists are actually finding uses for "junk DNA". Dr. Rana argues that these and common anatomical features can also be explained via "common design". He also explains that the fossil record actually shows that life was complex from the beginning; and shows "explosions" of speciation rather than a "gradual climb from relatively simple to complex". Dr. Rana argues that these "explosions" would be expected if a God was creating animals already in their complete form.

In his book "Creation as Science", Dr. Hugh Ross shows that the fossil record actually goes against any form of Evolution (naturalistic or theistic). So, Evolution loses that piece of evidence. Creation gains it. Now granted Common Descent has not lost all its evidence, but the evidence can be explained by Creation also. So, Creation is ahead of Evolution when it comes to the evidence.

Microevolution has been argued as part of God's great design to allow for variety and changing environments for His creatures. An animal's ability to adapt to a changing environment is perfectly compatible with God's nature. Much like engineers make certain designs optimal for multiple conditions, the Designer of the creation did the same.

What is not supported by the evidence is Macroevolution (Naturalistic or Theistic). We are left only with Creation.

Dr. Fazale Rana was recently interviewed on Stand to Reason with Greg Koukl. The name of the show is "What Darwin Didn't Know". Here is the complete recording (about 2 hours); Dr. Rana's interview starts about halfway through.



So to conclude this series: Based on the physical evidence and the Biblical evidence, it is safe to conclude that God created the universe about 14 billion years ago, and did not rely on mutations to "create" His creatures. Biblical inerrency is upheld and our observations of nature are verified to be accurate. We maintain consistency throughout the theory.

If you would like me to go into more detail about any specific topic discussed in this series, email me.

For more information, refer to the books, DVDs, and websites linked to throughout the series.

What's So Great About Gold?

Happy Valentine's Day!

Today is the day that many people will do all sorts of things to show those closest to them how much they love them. Some guys do it by purchasing jewelry for their wives/girlfriends. We all know how expensive buying pure gold can be. The main reason is because of its rarity. But do you know just how rare gold is in the universe? Did you know that gold was required for man to get to the "technological" Bronze Age? Did you know that the very existence of gold on our planet is powerful evidence for a Designer?

If you give your loved one gold this Valentine's Day, you can let them know that it is much more. It is a way to initiate conversation about the Christian faith and point the listener to the greatest act of love. Listen to this episode of Science New Flash to find out more. Its only about 13 minutes, so it won't take too long.

How Did It All Begin? Part 3- The Bible and Billions of Years

If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.

In Part 1 of this series of posts, I defined what the Big Bang is and provided a few things that point to it in the Bible. In Part 2, I separated the Big Bang from Evolution. In Part 3, I'm going to show what Biblical evidence convinced me that the Bible has no incompatibilities with the Big Bang's claim of billions of years.

Until about five years ago, I was a strict young-earth creationist. I believed that the Bible had no room for interpreting that the earth was older than about 10,000 years. I was (and still am) a strict inerrantist (I'll publish a post on this topic in the future). I believed (and still do) that the Bible must be taken literally, unless the context leads us to otherwise (i.e. Jesus' parables).

There are two main pieces of evidence that convinced me that an old-earth interpretation is perfectly acceptable- without compromising biblical innerrancy or a literal reading.

First, the word translated as "day" in Genesis 1 is yom. In ancient Hebrew, there only existed about 3000 words (for perspective, English today includes over 2 million). Many words were used to refer to many similar things. The word yom has three literal meanings:
1. A 12-hour period, from either sunset to sunrise or sunrise to sunset.
2. A 24 hour period from sunset to sunset.
3. A long, but finite, period of time. (There's another word for an infinite period of time).

Now this only allows for an old-earth interpretation, it does not prove anything. We know that it is possible, but possibility does not equal true. Is there any evidence that yom actually refers to a long, but finite period of time in the text? The second piece of evidence builds this case.

In the original Hebrew each of the days of creation were completed with the statement "evening was, morning was, day X". This is true of all the days with the exception of Day 7. This leads us to believe that we are still in God's day of rest. This would be an example of Day 7 being a long period of time. Revelation tells us that Day 7 is finite (God will create again- the New Creation).
Genesis 2:4 use the word yom to refer to the entire creation period described in Genesis 1.

These two pieces of evidence opened my mind to the interpretation being biblical. Here's a few more that had solidified this idea for me:

1. Adam did way too much (naming all the animals and tended the garden) before God created Eve for that one day to be just 24 hours.
2. When Adam saw Eve, he exclaimed, "At long last!" (in the original Hebrew). Unless Adam was extremely impatient, he would not have said "long".

The most common biblical objection that I run into on this is that God compares His creation week to our work week of 6 days + 1 rest (Exodus 20:11). The claim here is that this verse proves that our days are identical to God's days. I have a couple of counter arguments for this.

The first is just from basic reading of the verse by itself. If you were to replace the word "day(s)" with "period(s) of time", would it make sense? Since another literal definition of yom is "period of time" this is completely acceptable to do as a test. The answer is "yes". Once again, this does not prove anything, it just let's us know that it would be an acceptable interpretation if other evidence is found that pushes us that way.

Second, read it in context. This is the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. Nowhere is the equivocation of the length of our days made equal to God's. At best, this is an analogy. An analogy is a description that is used to connect similar ideas, not exact ideas. Considering the fact that the focus is not on the days themselves, but the fact that God rested, makes this a weak analogy, even if you want to take that position. However, whether Ex 20:11 is taken as a literal definition of the length of the day or analogous to the length of the day, it contradicts another scripture.

At this time, I will invoke Psalms 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by..." If God's day equals 24 hours (as claimed above) and it equals 1000 years, we have a problem. Exodus and Psalms now conflict. Obviously, Psalms is an analogy (indicated by the word "like"). But that doesn't get us out of the contradiction. 1000 years is not analogous to 24 hours, no matter what kind of mathematic gymnastics you attempt. If we are to assume that Ex 20:11 is an analogy too, then we still have a contradiction.

Whether Ex 20:11 is accepted as literal or analogous, young-earth creationists have a contradiction. The only way to avoid the contradiction (and maintain biblical inerrency) is to recognize that Ex 20:11 is not saying anything about the length of God's days and only that "He rested after six periods of time, therefore we should also".

Third, God established a pattern in The Law of "work six, rest one". He did this in the proper care of farm land. God states that Israel is to work the land for six years, then allow it to rest a seventh year. This pattern is also recognized in God's acts of creation, and in his establishment of man's week (Exodus 20:11). God was only continuing his pattern of 6+1 in the commandment.

The second most common objection is that the text uses the phrase "evening was, morning was, day X". It is claimed that "evening" and "morning" refer to a 24 period. My rebuttal to that is this: evening to morning is at the most 12 hours (unless creation took place near one of the poles). If this was referring to 24 hours, it would have been stated like this: "evening was, morning was, evening was, day X". "Evening" and "morning" are simply referring to the fact that the days began and ended (finite period of time).

For more information on this topic Reasons to Believe has a complete section of their website and several books devoted to it.

Reasons to Believe "Age of the Earth" Web Page
Reasons to Believe "Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?" Web Page
Matter of Days by Dr. Hugh Ross
The Genesis Question by Dr. Hugh Ross

Here is a series of blog posts by Billy Pratt from the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute about the issue:

"What is the Meaning of the Word 'Day' in Genesis" Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

In Part 4, I'm going to go a bit more into the theory of Evolution. Did God use evolution as the mechanism for His creation?

Movie Review- "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

I know I'm a little behind on this, but I watched Expelled for the first time last night. I expected it to be something different from what all the hype was saying, and I was right.

The purpose of the film was not to convince the viewer that intelligent design (ID) is a valid scientific theory (as the hype would have you believe). It focused on convincing the viewer that there is discrimination against people who hold this view throughout the academy and the media. Ben Stein spent way too much time "crying" about discrimination, when he should have spent more time explaining why ID should not be discriminated against. I mean, flat-earthers are discriminated against in the scientific community too, but you don't hear anyone crying about that. The reason is because there is NO evidence that the earth is flat. If someone was to attempt to change the paradigm, they would need to convince scientists that there is evidence- not just cry about not being heard. No one cares that you aren't being heard, unless you can convince them that what is not being heard has credible evidence. Also, parading in person after person who says that there is evidence for ID is different from actually presenting the evidence for ID.

Ben Stein did take about five minutes to put forth one argument for design (the complexity of the cell), but it was not very convincing. Ben Stein was also successful at making naturalists look like morons. If Ben wants to be heard by the institution and not just the public, he needs to stop trying to make them look like idiots and instead have an intelligent conversation about the evidence. Ben Stein was too focused on a negative argument against evolution, rather than a positive argument for his position. If you tell someone that their plan sucks, they will most likely ask you if you have a better one. If you can't provide a better plan, they will stick with the one they had originally, no matter how flawed it is. This is the approach taken in this movie.

Ben Stein did go off on a tangent near the end of the movie. He decided to talk about the implications of naturalistic Evolution. This is probably the most useful part of the film. He was really playing on the audience's emotions here. It really doesn't matter if someone likes the implications of a worldview or not, what matters is if the worldview is true or not. Don't get me wrong, when I argue against naturalistic Evolution or atheism, I will bring up the implications. But I include facts in my argument, because if the facts are not there, the implications can be discarded immediately (no matter how emotional).

Should you watch Expelled? It depends, if you believe that there is no discrimination against ID proponents, then Yes. If you are looking for credible evidence for ID, No. If you're interested in "Evolution bashing", Yes. If you want an intelligent conversation with evidence, No. If you want to see the implications of Naturalistic Evolution or atheism, Yes. If you want the facts before you consider the implications, No.

Here are the resources I recommend for credible evidence:

Websites:
Reasons to Believe
Reasonable Faith
Lee Strobel

Podcasts:
Science News Flash
Defenders
I Didn't Know That

DVDs:

Biology:
Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Netflix Online Rental) (Clip on YouTube)

Astronomy:
Journey Toward Creation (Netflix or Blockbuster Online Rentals)
Cosmic Fingerprints
Why Is the Big Bang Evidence That God Created the Universe
Can The Biblical Account of Creation be Reconciled with Scientific Evidence Today?

Both:
The Case For A Creator (Netflix or Blockbuster Online Rentals)

Books:

Biology:
Darwin's Black Box- Dr. Michael Behe
The Edge of Evolution- Dr. Michael Behe
The Cell's Design- Dr. Fazale Rana
Origins of Life- Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross

Astronomy:
The Creator and the Cosmos- Dr. Hugh Ross
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is- Dr. Hugh Ross
Lights In The Sky and Little Green Men- Dr. Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples, Mark Clark

Both:
Creation As Science- Dr. Hugh Ross
The Case For A Creator- Lee Strobel

Who's in Control? Part 2

In Part 1, I proposed a dilemma. Who's in control: Us or God? I showed that both beliefs have biblical support and that believing either way would undermine biblical inerrency. In Part 2, I will provide a possible answer that preserves biblical inerrency, God's sovereignty, and human free will.

I want to start by discussing God's omniscience a bit. The Bible clearly teaches that God knows all things (see Part 1 for references). He also knows our hearts (Ps 44:21; 139:1-4). I would like to propose that, based on this, God knows how every person will react freely to any and all circumstances that may be presented to them before He created them. This is referred to as "middle knowledge". (For more information about the doctrine of God's omniscience, including His middle knowledge, I will refer you to William Lane Craig's podcast Defenders. You will want the episodes on the Doctrine of God.)

How Did It All Begin? Part 2- Big Bang = Evolution?

If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.

In Part 1, I talked a little bit about how the Big Bang theory is a theory that is compatible with the Bible. In Part 2, I will tackle one of the Christian objections to the Big Bang:

Does accepting the Big Bang as fact mean that you concede any ground to evolution or naturalism? The major concern among Christians about the Big Bang is that it states that the universe is billions of years old; and these Christians believe that this is enough time for evolution to explain life naturalistically- doing away with God.

Big Bang cosmology states that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. In order for naturalistic evolution to take place and end up with life as complex as it is now, it would take into the trillions of trillions of years (this calculation was performed by a naturalist, not a theist. I'll post the reference as soon as I can find it again). 13.7 billion years is way too short of time for naturalistic evolution to explain the complexity of life. This is why many naturalists do not accept the Big Bang. Many naturalists prefer the steady state or cyclic universe model (both are infinite in time). If they can have an infinite or near infinite universe, then evolution has enough time to explain the complexity of life. The Big Bang actually restricts the amount of time evolution has to produce the life forms we see today (and even the first life forms in the fossil record). Therefore, the Big Bang does not require or even imply a belief in evolution to explain life. But let me take this one step further:

The origin of life problem. Evolution does not even attempt to explain how life started; it only attempts to explain how the different types of life emerged. It assumes life already exists. There have been many naturalistic theories to explain how life began. Earth has been abandoned as a source for the origin of life (primordial soup theory). Naturalistic origin-of-life researchers have shifted their focus to extraterrestrial sources (that's why the media freaks out every time there is the slightest discovery on Mars or Titan). Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Fazale Rana have both argued in their books (Darwin's Black Box and The Cell's Design, respectively) for the extreme complexity of even the simplest life. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana argue in their coauthored book (Origins of Life) for the impossibility for the origin of life on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) due to its irreduciblely complex requirements. Hugh Ross also argues against the current theory of aliens bringing life to earth in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men. If you want one book that quickly gives an overview of all this material, check out Creation as Science by Hugh Ross.

For further investigation, I recommend checking out the list of resources from Part 1 and this blog post by Billy Pratt from the Ankerberg Theological Reasearch Institute:

Does 4.5 Billion Year Old Earth Prove Evolution is True?

Since the Big Bang has now been separated in our minds from Evolution, in Part 3 I will tackle the other Christian objection to the Big Bang's claim of billions of years. Does the Bible strictly teach a creation that took place in only 6 24hr days?

How Did It All Begin? Part 1- Is The "Big Bang" Biblical?

If you have not already, please read my post "Nature vs. Scripture" before continuing.

First, let me start by explaining why this is question worth contemplating, then I will answer the question.

For many centuries the main idea about how the universe came into being was that it has always existed. "The universe is eternal. It has no beginning and no ending." The major theistic religions of the world (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- in that order) have all stood alone among the many other worldviews as holding that the universe had a beginning in the finite past.

Albert Einstein rocked the boat quite a bit with his theory of special relativity. The math, he calculated, predicted that the universe did have a beginning. He did not believe this, so he introduced what he called the "cosmological constant". This allowed his equations to predict the eternal universe that was the reigning paradigm at the time. Later, Edwin Hubble confirmed Einstein's original equations by observing the expansion of the universe. Einstein was then forced to remove his "cosmological constant" from his equations.

Why did the expansion convince Einstein? Anything that is expanding gets larger with respect to time. If that time is reversed, the object that was expanding now contracts, all the way down to a singular point of beginning.

Fred Hoyle was an atheistic cosmologist that supported the idea of the universe being eternal, back in the 60's. On a radio show he described the model, proposed by Einstein's equations and observationally verified by Hubble, as a "big bang". It was used as a disparaging term, that caught on since then. Hubble despised this theory because he knew that if the universe was expanding, then something had to exist to initiate the expansion, thus the universe has a beginning. Hoyle did not like this idea because he also knew that this provided compelling evidence for the existence of a Beginner (God).

"Big Bang" theory:

...requires a beginning and, by implication, a Beginner.
...states that at the beginning of the universe, time itself began. Which implies that the Beginner must exist outside of time.
...states that the universe, literally, came from nothing.
...predicts the universe is expanding
...requires extremely fine-tuned values for numerous laws and relationships in the universe

The Bible states (not comprehensive):

God existed before the universe and created the universe. Genesis 1:1; John 1:1
God created the universe from the unseen. Hebrews 11:3
God stretches out the heavens. Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; Zechariah 12:1

What's really ironic about the title "Big Bang" is that this term conjures up the idea of a chaotic explosion. In the last couple decades astronomers have discovered that the expansion of the universe has been extremely fine tuned. They have also discovered that numerous other factors in the universe (including the physical laws themselves) have been extremely fine tuned. The levels of fine tuning that has been discovered have such a remote possibility of taking place naturalistically as to be mathematically indistinguishable from zero. The only other explanation is that a Super Intellect designed the universe in a precise way for some reason.

Considering this evidence, I believe that "Big Bang" cosmology is compatible with the Bible. Further more, the possibility that the Biblical authors stood alone, for centuries, in describing the universe exactly as modern scientists have found it to be is astronomically minute. This provides extra support for the idea that the Bible was inspired by, not only a divine entity, but the One who created the universe and knows everything about it.

Here's an episode of Dr. William Lane Craig's podcast Reasonable Faith that discusses the issue: The Big Bang


For further investigation, I recommend:

DVDs:
Journey Toward Creation (Netflix or Blockbuster Online Rentals)
Cosmic Fingerprints
Why Is the Big Bang Evidence That God Created the Universe
Can The Biblical Account of Creation be Reconciled with Scientific Evidence Today?

Online Videos:
Reasons to Believe Q&A Videos

Podcasts:
Science News Flash
I Didn't Know That
Why The Universe Is The Way It Is
More Than a Theory

Websites:
Reasons to Believe "The Bible and Science" Web Page
Big Bang for Beginners
Lee Strobel.com
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute

Books:
Creation as Science- Dr. Hugh Ross
Creator and The Cosmos- Dr. Hugh Ross
Case for a Creator- Lee Strobel
Why the Universe Is The Way It Is- Dr. Hugh Ross

In Part 2, I will begin to discuss the equation of "Big Bang" with "Evolution". Does acceptance of the "Big Bang" require or, at least, imply acceptance of Evolution?

Who's in Control? Part 1

Free Will vs Divine Predestination.

This is a debate that has been going on in the Church for centuries. Who's really in control, God or me? Let's start by looking at the two options:

Positions-

Free Will- Man makes his own choices without the persuasion of an outside entity. Man is in complete control of his own destiny.

Divine Predestination- God is in complete control. Man's decisions are not really his own- they just appear to be.

Politics 101

This more of a pet-peeve that I'm sure many of you share about politicians. I have noticed, though, that this tactic is being used more and more in debates and standard conversation. Its really sad.

People ask questions because they don't know something. The politician "answers" the question by telling the questioner something they already know and believe to be true- nothing new regarding their question, though.

The reason this normally works on people is that the politician provided intelligent reasons for believing what the questioner already knows. People's attention (when asking a question) is attracted to any new information, regardless of the relevance. The more evidence that is provided to support the new information, the more likely they are to accept it as an answer, once again regardless of the relevance to the question. But the politician has not provided any new information regarding the original question.

This is why politicians can "give answers" but not really give answers. Politicians also have perfected this art of rhetoric by changing a few words slightly in their "answers" to make it sound like it is relevant.

People who have trained themselves to identify this manipulative rhetoric, if provided the chance, may challenge it; which places the politician in the uncomfortable position of actually answering the question. Many politicians use the same tactic in response to the challenge, because they know that these discerning people are in the minority, and of that minority, only a minority have the guts to challenge them.

If they can avoid the challenge, its not likely they will have to deal with it again, and not likely that the other "undiscerning" people even care. Many politicians allow themselves to use this tactic (even though, they know it is academically and morally dishonest) because they have convinced themselves that they have answered the question and the question needs no further investigation or attention.

The true power of this tactic comes to light when the question regards defending a position. The result: If the politician can avoid an actual answer, by "answering" the question using the tactics above, they can persuade people to their position without any valid reason for the persuasion. The ultimate goal is to persuade, which in this case, the politician is victorious. But it is an empty victory.

The true danger of this tactic comes to light when the question regards defending a position on ultimate truth. The result: If the politician can avoid an actual answer, by "answering" the question using the tactics above, they have only convinced themselves of the position (and maybe many others) but, the ultimate truth does not change, and their eternal fate is at stake. The ultimate goal again is to persuade, but only the things that have no control over the eternal (people) have been persuaded. Truth itself still remains steadfast. This is not just an empty victory for the politician, but ultimate defeat for himself and those he persuaded.

As Christians, it is our duty to debate honestly. May no one ever catch us using this tactic- and if someone does, may they call us on it, immediately.

Also, don't allow yourself to be a victim of this tactic. If you find yourself in this situation, call the person it "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15c).

Is "Blind Faith" Biblical?

I want to bring up a couple verses that many Christians use to promote "blind faith" as the key concept in accepting Christianity.

"But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.'" (Luke 18:16-17)

"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Mark 10:15

If you read each of these verses, even quickly, you'll notice that Jesus makes no reference specifically to what it is about the children that the adults need to have to enter the kingdom of God.

(In reference to my page Why Apologetics) If the definition of pistis (translated "faith" in the New Testament) is actually a "belief based on facts" and not "a belief based on a 'feeling' or without facts", and if we insist on holding that Jesus was talking about a "blind faith" in these passages. we have a contradiction within the Bible to deal with.

Since this contradiction has been identified, we need to re-interpret the original words of Christ. I believe that we can't know with 100% certainty what attribute of children Jesus was talking about, but we can rule out "blind faith."

What I would offer, just from a surface reading, is that Christ was talking about children's enthusiasm for or 100% commitment to the things they are involved in or believe. Keep in mind that the behavior has nothing to do with the foundation of those beliefs.

As a Christian, there is nothing wrong with wanting a firm foundation for your beliefs. The same follows for non-Christians who are considering giving their lives to Christ. Let no one ever lead you to believe that "blind faith" is more "Christian" than asking the tough questions and further investigating. On the contrary, doing this allows us to move from theological "milk" to "solid food" (Heb 5:11-14)

Now, I want to clear up a couple possible objections to this that just popped into my head. I am NOT saying that facts are all that is needed to be a Christian. If that was the case, it would be the same as knowing of and about someone versus personally knowing that person. You can know of and about Jim Carrey, but that is not the same as personally knowing him.

I also am NOT saying that God demands ONLY a fact-based faith. If that were the case, then everyone would be excluded. No one can know everything exhaustively with 100% certainty. It is possible to know something truly without knowing it exhaustively*. Also not everything the Bible claims can be tested. But enough can be tested and verified to accept those things that can't be tested.

Many people have different needs when it comes to "what will it take for you to give your life to Christ?". Some people require lots of evidence before they will take that final "leap of faith" into God's arms, and others require very little. The end result is still the same. The means by which you got there make no difference at this point. God does not care the reasons for which you came to Him; He's just glad that you did.

God does not elevate one reason for coming to Him over another. Neither should His followers. As Christians we need to recognize that we will meet many challenges in our lives that will emotionally and intellectually test our trust in Christ. Some of these challenges will come from experiences. Having a faith with a solid foundation (not blind) that can be defended will help provide us with a deeper understanding of and commitment to Christ. We will also receive challenges from those we evangelize. Having a faith that is not blind, will help us to articulate our reasons for the hope we have (1 Peter 3:15) and address arguments against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor 10:5)

Check out these great articles on this topic:
The Problem of Blind Faith
Is Reason Really an Enemy of Faith?
The Nicene Council - The Blind Faith of Atheism


Dr. Fazale Rana from Reasons to Believe was directly challenged on this issue. Watch his response:



Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason offers this alternative to the word "faith" because of the secular world's insistence of adding "blind" to the front of it:






*(thanks to Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason for articulating this important distinction)